PHILIPPINE LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE
COMPANY,PETITIONER,
VS.
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION AND LETTIE
P. CORPUZ, RESPONDENTS
G.R. NO. 111933. JULY 23, 1997
FACTS:
• This petition for certiorari pleads for the revocation of the November 16, 1992, decision of
the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC).
• Private respondent Lettie Corpuz was employed as traffic operator at the Manila
International Traffic Division (MITD) by the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company
(PLDT) for ten years and nine months, from September 19, 1978, until her dismissal on June
17, 1989. Her primary task was to facilitate requests for incoming and outgoing international
calls through the use of a digital switchboard.
• Sometime in December 1987, PLDTs rank-and-file employees and telephone operators went
on strike, prompting the supervisors of the MITD to discharge the formers duties to prevent a
total shutdown of its business operations. While in the course of their emergency assignments,
two supervisors almost simultaneously received two different requests for overseas calls bound
for different Middle East countries and both callers reported the same calling number.
The tone verifications having yielded negative results, the callers were advised to hang up their
telephones to enable the supervisors to effect an alternative verification system by calling the
same number again. The seemingly anomalous incident was reported to the Quality Control
Inspection Department (QCID) for further investigation.
• After doing the re run, and finding the results, On July 26, 1988, MITD Manager Erlinda
Kabigting directed respondent to explain her alleged infraction, that is, facilitating 34 calls
using the disconnected number.
• Instead of tendering the required explanation, respondent requested a formal investigation to
allow her to confront the witnesses and rebut the proofs that may be brought against her. On
grounds of serious misconduct and breach of trust, the Legal Department recommended her
dismissal. In a letter dated June 16, 1989, respondent was terminated from employment
effective the following day.
PETITIONER’S ARGUMENT:
Petitioners claimed that no call can be filed through a disconnected line, a certain Ms. Bautista
averred getting the same subject number after going through the standard verification
procedures. She added that this complexity extends even to other disconnected telephone lines.
Equally important is the fact that on February 7, 1989, or about two years after it was
permanently disconnected, telephone number 98-68-16 was used in calling an international
number, 561-6800, that lasted for 46 minutes. Telephone operator number 448 seems to have
been spared from any administrative sanction considering that this lapse has aggravated the
persistent problem concerning telephone number 98-68-16
RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:
Respondent claimed that the petitioner failed to convincingly establish valid
bases on the alleged serious misconduct and loss of trust and confidence.
ISSUE:
Whether or not PLDT illegally dismissed respondent from her employment
PROVISION SUBJECT TO STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION:
Art 4, Labor Code of the Philippines
Art 4: Construction in favor of labor. All doubts in the implementation and
interpretation of the provisions of this Code, including its implementing rules and
regulations, shall be resolved in favor of labor.
RULING :
Yes. Under Art 4 of the Labor Code, the workingmans welfare should be the primordial and
paramount consideration. The State shall afford full protection to labor and promote full
employment opportunities for all. Likewise, it shall guarantee the rights of all workers to security
of tenure. Such constitutional right should not be denied on mere speculation of any unclear and
nebulous basis.
The Court will not sanction a dismissal premised on mere conjectures and suspicions. To be a
valid ground for respondents dismissal, the evidence must be substantial and not arbitrary and
must be founded on clearly established facts sufficient to warrant his separation from work. It
should be borne in mind that in termination cases, the employer bears the burden of proving
that the dismissal is for just cause failing which would mean that the dismissal is not justified and
the employee is entitled to reinstatement. The essence of due process in administrative
proceedings is the opportunity to explain ones side or a chance to seek reconsideration of the
action or ruling complained of. The twin requirements of notice and hearing constitute the
essential elements of due process.
This simply means that the employer shall afford the worker ample opportunity to be heard and
to defend himself with the assistance of his representative, if he so desires. Ample opportunity
connotes every kind of assistance that management must accord the employee to enable him to
prepare adequately for his defense including legal representation.
